New Flurry Interpretation Retcon Or Not?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

I said it once in this thread, but no one answered. So I'll ask again: what does it matter if it's a retcon or not?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
I said it once in this thread, but no one answered. So I'll ask again: what does it matter if it's a retcon or not?

If, hypothetically, it were, it would mean the devs decided to change the rules a few years into the existence of the game. That in itself is not a good precedent to establish. If a developer just decides to change (not correct) a rule in core, it can cause major problems for teaching and playing the game. Remember hopefully there are always new people trying the game, not just die-hard vets and message board flunkies with too much time on their hands (*raises hand*), and if a ruling gets spread around in one place and core says another, that can open a can of worms, especially for stuff like organized play (PFS) and con demonstrations.

Which is probably why it's not a retcon. Paizo staff are pretty sensitive to ensuring they do not override stuff that's in the core rules.


DeathQuaker wrote:
The post above

Are you against errata? I don't really see the difference that intention ("correcting" vs "changing") makes.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
Are you against errata? I don't really see the difference that intention ("correcting" vs "changing") makes.

First, do you really think that I am? You asked what difference what it made. I humored you and answered your question hypothetically to the best of my ability, since I felt sorry for you that your question had not been answered earlier.

Since you have difficulty understanding, let me try to clarify:

A correction is something like:

"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities can be countered with dispel magic. On page 3n6, it says spell-like abilities cannot be countered with dispel magic. What is on page 3n6 is the correct rule."

A change is something like:
"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities do not require verbal, somatic, or material components. We have decided now, 4 years into development, that they do."

The latter, in my opinion, is not errata, and not good game design. If you still fail to understand the difference, then it is beyond my capacity to explain it to you, and you are of course welcome to disagree.

I will also reiterate that I see this whole thing as hypothetical, as I also stated in my first answer to you. I do not in fact believe the clarification WAS a retcon or a change--but in fact a correction/clarification. It's a problematic one for reasons discussed at length throughout these boards, but still a correction/clarification.

Have a lovely evening.


Can I ask why it matters? Admittedly, our group has a terrible understanding of the rules and a willingness to remain oblivious, so things like this make no difference to us (we can misunderstand something no matter how many times it's clarified). I could see this being an issue with PFS players, but since Paizo are allowing PFS characters to be rebuilt it seems like they're sticking with what the rules were intended but giving people the benefit of the doubt in case anyone has been harmed by the misunderstanding/lack of clarity.

I dont really see the importance of establishing whether its a change or a clarification (my default assumption is people tell the truth and the 'head honcho' said it's a clarification - therefore it's a clarification). If Paizo have changed their mind it's presumably because they think this makes the game better. If they're explaining a previously misunderstood rule it's presumably because they think the original (misunderstood) rule makes the game better.

Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

Part of the reason this IS such a hot button issue that's got people worked up is that there IS no prior precedence of something like this. We're talking about something that out of the blue that could take some interesting archetypes and character concepts and skewer them.

That and...lets face it, it's happening to a class that's very controversial in regards to it's implementation. There's a new "ARGH! MONK IS SO FLAWED!" Thread every few months for a reason. It's sort of like kicking a puppy.


DeathQuaker wrote:

First, do you really think that I am? You asked what difference what it made. I humored you and answered your question hypothetically to the best of my ability, since I felt sorry for you that your question had not been answered earlier.

Since you have difficulty understanding, let me try to clarify:

A correction is something like:

"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities can be countered with dispel magic. On page 3n6, it says spell-like abilities cannot be countered with dispel magic. What is on page 3n6 is the correct rule."

A change is something like:
"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities do not require verbal, somatic, or material components. We have decided now, 4 years into development, that they do."

The latter, in my opinion, is not errata, and not good game design. If you still fail to understand the difference, then it is beyond my capacity to explain it to you, and you are of course welcome to disagree.

I think a better example would be something like this....

A correction is something like:

"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities can be countered with dispel magic. On page 3n6, it says spell-like abilities cannot be countered with dispel magic. What is on page 3n6 is the correct rule."

A change is something like:
"On page 2n6, it says spell-like abilities can be countered with dispel magic. We have decided now, 4 years into development, that spell-like abilities cannot be countered with dispel magic."

Notice in my examples, the end result is the same. So if the end result is the same, does it matter if it's errata or a change? I would say, no, it does not matter.

Thus my point, that this thread, in my opinion, is pointless. I understand not liking the "new" rule, but I do not understand debate over whether or not it's a retcon or not.

Thank you for answering me, by the way. :)

Steve Geddes wrote:
Can I ask why it matters?
Steve Geddes wrote:

I dont really see the importance of establishing whether its a change or a clarification (my default assumption is people tell the truth and the 'head honcho' said it's a clarification - therefore it's a clarification). If Paizo have changed their mind it's presumably because they think this makes the game better. If they're explaining a previously misunderstood rule it's presumably because they think the original (misunderstood) rule makes the game better.

Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do?

Exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only person thinking like this...


ReconstructorFleet wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

Part of the reason this IS such a hot button issue that's got people worked up is that there IS no prior precedence of something like this. We're talking about something that out of the blue that could take some interesting archetypes and character concepts and skewer them.

That and...lets face it, it's happening to a class that's very controversial in regards to it's implementation. There's a new "ARGH! MONK IS SO FLAWED!" Thread every few months for a reason. It's sort of like kicking a puppy.

I can understand people disagreeing with a design decision - that happens all the time.

I just dont understand queries along the lines of "Paizo say this was always how the rules were intended. Do you think they're being honest about that?"

EDIT: Furthermore, it seems to me that significant rules changes are hardly frequent occurences. If they do happen, it will presumably be because the game designers think it's the best thing to do. Personally, I'd like game designers to be worrying about how to make the best game they can, rather than to be worrying about issues of 'precedent'.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axl wrote:

Yeah, we wouldn't want the thread to end up like this one.

Obviously, I've learned a few lessons since then.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

So many threads and so many thoughts, no way I can keep up with it all. So forgive, because I'm sure this has been asked:

If Flurry of Blows is supposed to be treated just like the TWF feat, how do you handle *three* weapons? A kama in one hand, a sai in a 2nd hand, and unarmed strike?

TWF is based on primary and off-hand weapons, but not three weapons. So, what's the penalty for a 3rd weapon attack?

Also, if as a mathematical combination people can't accept 6 of one weapon and 0 of another, then why doesn't 5-1 work? That breaks TWF rules, too, and by all definitions (even theirs) is a combination. Or by the three weapon situation, 4-1-1. That's also a combination.

Are the developers universally silent or just on this issue right now?


You should be able to use all three, but only one of them is the primary weapon. That is of course assuming we don't get another surprise.


TWF does not address itself to three weapons, does it? Furthermore, SKR's clarification forces equality of iterative attacks. 3 with the flaming kama, and 3 with the cold iron sai. Where's the unarmed strike in this?


jupistar wrote:
TWF does not address itself to three weapons, does it? Furthermore, SKR's clarification forces equality of iterative attacks. 3 with the flaming kama, and 3 with the cold iron sai. Where's the unarmed strike in this?

No. TWF does not say if a 2nd off-hand weapon can be used or not. I guess I should have said "I dont know", since they are creating questions with this rulings that did not exist before.


Well, at the very least, I would say that it's implied with the term "Two Weapon Fighting". :)

But in exact words, here's what it says,

"Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting.

Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light."

A reference is here to "two weapons" and many references to a "second weapon in your off hand". Keep in mind, your knee is not an off-hand, anyway. It's just a third weapon.

I'm just pointing out that the reference to TWF in the FOB rules was interpreted by me as being merely a referential guideline on how to understand the calculation of the attack bonus, but not restrictive rules on how things were supposed to work. TWF does not reference the idea of three weapon attacks at all.

It's actually an item that piques my curiosity. The base difference between a Monk's unarmed strike and a Fighter's unarmed strike is one of lethality, not permissibility. So, couldn't a fighter hit with a sword in one hand and an unarmed strike with his other hand? If so, then why couldn't the thief wielding two rapiers with TWF upon reaching the 8th level make an attack with each rapier and say, a knee? I would assume he could, but I don't see how the rules address this issue.


What happens if you have three weapons really isn't a consequence of this ruling. It's been possible for a while to have like, a weapon in each hand and armor spikes and blade boots. It's just a question that seldom comes up because it's very rarely beneficial to combine three or more types of weapon attacks into a single routine. (Not never, but rarely.)


But it is relevant to this ruling because of the fact that FoB allows *any* combination (including the use of three weapons) "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat". The point is that Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't allow for multiple attacks with anything but two weapons (you get one additional attack at a negative penalty), FoB allows for three weapons in whatever combination you like (at least, it used to). For example:

At 15th level (+13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3) I should be able to:

3 Kama attacks (right-hand), 1 Sai attack (left-hand), 2 Unarmed strike (right foot)

or

1 Kama, 1 Sai, 4 US

But SKRs ruling said things had to be balanced between your attacks, but that was assuming a two-weapon approach.

Edit: Let me word this differently to make my point. If you use three different weapons, which one is primary? Which ones are considered "off-hand" even though monk doesn't have an off-hand? Which one gets which bonuses? Can I see the Kama and the Sai get the +13, +13, and the 4 US get the +8, +8, +3, +3? According to SKR, I have to use things equally, so does that mean I can only use two weapons to fight or do I have to do 2 attacks with each weapon? If so, which ones get the +13s? Which ones the +8s? Before, I would have let the monk choose. But according to SKR, they have to be split up evenly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

I think the developers intended it to work as TWF and were genuinely surprised to find out the rule had misinterpreted.

No, I don't think they intentionally set out to nerf the monk, just consolidate rules.

I understand that many people who have been playing monks the other way were chagrined to find out that they were unwittingly using a house rule and not RAW or RAI. Some people pride themselves on avoidance of house rules and adherence to RAW, so I understand some strong feelings about it.

The problem here is that we have Rules-as-Written (which are ambiguous at best), Rules-as-Intended (which are not) and Rules-as-Played (which are something else entirely).

Paizo have stated that the TWF interpretation is how they were intended, but for the last several years everyone - including people writing material for Paizo themselves - has interpreted the rules as played to be closer to the original FoB. That means that while Paizo have officially made this a clarification, it is to all intents and purposes for 90% of the players a retcon.

I think that this is why the Paizo staff are still debating it. Using the Rules-as-Played does not invalidate any monk build based on TWFing, but making the change to rules-as-intended means a lot of problems for a lot of players.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.

That would be true if this change DID make the game more fun for a lot of people, but it actually nerfs the hell out of some characters. If that is the intention, it failed badly.

ReconstructorFleet wrote:
Part of the reason this IS such a hot button issue that's got people worked up is that there IS no prior precedence of something like this. We're talking about something that out of the blue that could take some interesting archetypes and character concepts and skewer them.

Not only that, it came up in a question concerning the Amulet of Mighty Fists and why it has to be so expensive and why there are no alternatives for the monk that are cheaper, since they 'clarified' brass knuckles to not do so on the grounds that they would make the AoMF redundant. Their justification came down to unarmed strike being many weapons, not one, which came as one big surprise to many people.

They then clarified that this was how they intended the monk to work in the first place and that we'd been doing it wrong all along.

ReconstructorFleet wrote:
That and...lets face it, it's happening to a class that's very controversial in regards to it's implementation. There's a new "ARGH! MONK IS SO FLAWED!" Thread every few months for a reason. It's sort of like kicking a puppy.

Just so. The Pathfinder monk looked like a big improvement on the 3.5 monk at first, but then we discover that Improved Natural Attack is off the wish-list, then we read the fine-print and half the other things we could do as a 3.5 monk no longer ring true. Brass knuckles come along and YES! we can build effective, damage dealing monks now...oh no we can't, because that would be unfair to the amulet of mighty fists, and we can't use flurry with one weapon because that would be 'unfair' to the other classes using TWF...

Seriously guys, how about being fair to the monk for once? How about giving the monk something decent the other classes do not have? It's like saying that paladins can only smite with holy weapons, or that rangers can only use their fighting style on favoured enemies, or that fighters need special (+1 equivelant property) weapons to use weapon training, because otherwise it isn't fair to the other classes...


I guess they are worried about someone hold items and attacking with their feet, which would give the monk a distinct advantage. If that is the case they can create an item that only works on the monk's fist. That way they can keep the amulet for the monk, and those who have no intention of using a weapon or holding anything in their hands are not taxed for no reason.


"Retcon" isn't quite the right expression IMO.

What you are discussing is: "Is this a rules change or a rules clarification"?

I think its most certainly a rules change. One I do not really see the need for.


Hyla wrote:

"Retcon" isn't quite the right expression IMO.

What you are discussing is: "Is this a rules change or a rules clarification"?

I think its most certainly a rules change. One I do not really see the need for.

I tried to tell them that retcon is not the appropriate term, but they persist. Some out of ignorance and others out of willful ignorance.

In a way it's funny that some of the same people claiming the current monk problem comes from unclear language in the writing would then go on to (sometimes deliberately) misuse a term when discussing the issue.


Dabbler wrote:


Quote:
Either way, the game designers are trying to make the game as good as possible. Isnt that the best thing for them to do? It's not like they pop in with frequent revisions/clarifications to the rules do they? Concerns about precedent seem unwarranted, to me.
That would be true if this change DID make the game more fun for a lot of people, but it actually nerfs the hell out of some characters. If that is the intention, it failed badly.

I still think its true, even if they "failed badly" in this instance (I wouldn't know).

We still want them to try to make the game as good as possible. What else do we want them to aim for?


Flurry of blows: "When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat."

Two-weapon fighting: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6."

The two-weapon fighting feat allows attacks with exactly two weapons. (Clue is in the name.) It does not allow attacks with three weapons in one full-attack.

Flurry of blows allows "any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, etc.)". The phrase "any combination" seems to imply that more than two weapons (or fewer than two weapons) could be included in the full-attack. However this interpretation is incompatible with "as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat".

Perhaps the flurry of blows text would be better as "a combination", not "any combination". This would restrict flurry of blows to exactly two different weapons, just like TWF. However I don't know if that was the writer's intent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Mage Evolving wrote:

This is only an issue if you accept the ruling... which I do not.

Count me among those that choose to stick their head in the sand and blissfully ignore the gimping of an already underpowered class.

It's not under powered. It is perfect. My games rely heavily on humanoid enemies and low levels. Characters are often without armor and skills are important.

Impaired people win gold medals in paralimpics too.

Back to the topic: It really doesn't matter if it is a retcon or not. It is a nerf. And I doubt "monk" is the class that needed a nerf

Dark Archive

How this all got started in the first place is hand wraps for monks in Ultimate Equipment.

So if FoB = TWF stays, Paizo better make items in Ultimate Equipment that's worth a damn for the monk.

But I would still complain about FoB = TWF because of all the problem it creates.

Dabbler, you might need to point people to your post with all the exceptions and why lots of us want it FoB /=/ TWF. And this is from a guy who is willing to accept nerfs due to rules clarifications. Because very few thought FoB = TWF in the first place, including Paizo designers.


Axl wrote:


The two-weapon fighting feat allows attacks with exactly two weapons. (Clue is in the name.) It does not allow attacks with three weapons in one full-attack.

Incorrect.

One can, with a BAB 11 say, make 3 attacks- each with one of 3 different weapons and not be TWF.

If one elects to use TWF, then that same character could make 4 attacks with 4 different weapons.

For example the character in question could be using quickdraw and throwing different daggers with each attack.

This is perfectly within the rules.

The name of the fighting style is what confuses people. If WOTC had originally named it something else like 'Florentine' or some such, despite getting flack on it not being accurate it would have caused less confusion down the line.

-James


cranewings wrote:
Mage Evolving wrote:


This is only an issue if you accept the ruling... which I do not.

Count me among those that choose to stick their head in the sand and blissfully ignore the gimping of an already underpowered class.

It's not under powered. It is perfect. My games rely heavily on humanoid enemies and low levels. Characters are often without armor and skills are important.

A class isn't perfect if you design encounters specifically to showcase the strengths of said class.

In a high level game with infinite gold and only 1 encounter a day, a wizard is beyond god.

In a high level game with dozens of encounters and little, to no, chance of resting, enemies interrupting rest, enemy spellcasters constantly dealing with whatever contingencies are put into place and thwarting spellcasters, spellbooks being constantly stolen and most foes are immune to magic, well...the wizard isn't all that good anymore.

Monks, in general, are on the lower end of useful as part of classes. They have a hard time hitting unless they stand still, their AC isn't exactly stellar unless you're boosting Dex/Wis up in a serious way to keep up with your average armor wearing PC, their unarmed damage is nice but has some serious Get-Through-DR-Issues and now they have to use either two weapons to flurry, or rely on their substandard unarmed strike and invest in an AoMF. Among other things.

For a typically ascetically inclined archetype, monks sure need to invest in quite a few extremely expensive magic items to stay competitive in the game. The same can be said for most classes but the monk is the class that gets the "you can't have stuff" option, so you'd think it implied that magic items should be gravy on the meal instead of the main course.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
james maissen wrote:
Axl wrote:


The two-weapon fighting feat allows attacks with exactly two weapons. (Clue is in the name.) It does not allow attacks with three weapons in one full-attack.

Incorrect.

One can, with a BAB 11 say, make 3 attacks- each with one of 3 different weapons and not be TWF.

If one elects to use TWF, then that same character could make 4 attacks with 4 different weapons.

For example the character in question could be using quickdraw and throwing different daggers with each attack.

This is perfectly within the rules.

The name of the fighting style is what confuses people. If WOTC had originally named it something else like 'Florentine' or some such, despite getting flack on it not being accurate it would have caused less confusion down the line.

-James

SRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Nowhere does it mention that you can take iterative attacks with the second weapon. In fact, there are archetypes that specifically give you this ability. The rondelero duelist for example:

SRD wrote:

Strong Swing (Ex)

At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur penalties as two-weapon fighting does.

This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.

Why would the archetype grant that ability at 5th-level if it was something everyone could already do?

And don't bring up Prone Shooter. I'd hate to think that designers had made more than one option that does absolutely nothing at all.

I also have never seen the multiple attacks from a full attack action allow you to do that.

Two-Weapon Fighting is not confusing people at all. It's how the game handles using two weapons. More than two weapons is handled under Multiweapon Fighting.


james maissen wrote:
Axl wrote:


The two-weapon fighting feat allows attacks with exactly two weapons. (Clue is in the name.) It does not allow attacks with three weapons in one full-attack.

Incorrect.

One can, with a BAB 11 say, make 3 attacks- each with one of 3 different weapons and not be TWF.

If one elects to use TWF, then that same character could make 4 attacks with 4 different weapons.

For example the character in question could be using quickdraw and throwing different daggers with each attack.

This is perfectly within the rules.

The name of the fighting style is what confuses people. If WOTC had originally named it something else like 'Florentine' or some such, despite getting flack on it not being accurate it would have caused less confusion down the line.

-James

Sorry,

But bestiary disagree's with this interpretation.

Bestiary wrote:


Multiweapon Fighting (Combat)

This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

It seems it's intended that if you are attacking with more than two weapons, you need multiweapon fighting, not two-weapon fighting. If TWF acted as you claim, there would be no reason for MWF, as TWF would handle the third weapon.

EDIT : Darn Ninja-Gators and their silly top hats.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually,
This brings up another can of worms I bet nobody has thought of.

Multiweapon fighting says it replaces TWF if the target has more than 2 arms.

So, if a MWF replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms, and if, as SKR stated, FoB is based on TWF, then is FoB based on MWF for monks with more than two arms?

This would mean a 6 armed monk would get how many attacks as part of a FoB? Theoretically, if they were wielding 6 kamas, they'd get 6 attacks. So they should get six punches as well.

I'm wondering if the Dev's considered this?


mdt wrote:


Sorry,
But bestiary disagree's with this interpretation.

It seems it's intended that if you are attacking with more than two weapons, you need multiweapon fighting, not two-weapon fighting. If TWF acted as you claim, there would be no reason for MWF, as TWF would handle the third weapon.

EDIT : Darn Ninja-Gators and their silly top hats.

Incorrect.

You are confusing things here.

Multiweapon fighting gives an additional attack for each extra arm.

It's the extra attacks that this is dealing with NOT the number of weapons.

What is my example 11BAB thrower doing when he's making his 3 BAB attacks with those daggers? Is he multi-weapon fighting? No. He's making his normal iterative attacks.

It's a common misunderstanding, do a search either here, WOTC, or maybe the Yahoo infinite monkeys group and you can read all you'd care to about people confusing fighting with N weapons and two weapon fighting.

James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

<brief rant>

Spoiler:
and this is why I'm hoping 5e is not a complete pile of drek

</brief rant>


james maissen wrote:
mdt wrote:


Sorry,
But bestiary disagree's with this interpretation.

It seems it's intended that if you are attacking with more than two weapons, you need multiweapon fighting, not two-weapon fighting. If TWF acted as you claim, there would be no reason for MWF, as TWF would handle the third weapon.

EDIT : Darn Ninja-Gators and their silly top hats.

Incorrect.

You are confusing things here.

Multiweapon fighting gives an additional attack for each extra arm.

It's the extra attacks that this is dealing with NOT the number of weapons.

What is my example 11BAB thrower doing when he's making his 3 BAB attacks with those daggers? Is he multi-weapon fighting? No. He's making his normal iterative attacks.

It's a common misunderstanding, do a search either here, WOTC, or maybe the Yahoo infinite monkeys group and you can read all you'd care to about people confusing fighting with N weapons and two weapon fighting.

James

So a 16th level fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Quick Draw and haste, could do the following (presuming regular two weapon fighting penalties with a regular and light weapon in the off-hand for "off-hand TWF attacks" since the off-hand attacks are all light weapons) @+14/+14/+9/+4/-1 (iterative attacks) +14/+9/+4 (off-hand attacks) plus relevant modifiers:

Attack with a longsword once (iterative attack 1 of 5), attack with a longsword in his off-hand (iterative attack 2 of 5), drop the longsword in his off-hand (free), Quick Draw a falcata (free), attack with the falcata (iterative attack 3 of 5), drop the falcata in his off-hand (free), Quick Draw a morning start (free), attack with the morningstar (iterative attack 4 of 5), drop the morningstar (free), Quick Draw scimitar (free), attack with the scimitar (iterative attack 5 of 5), drop scimitar (free), Quick Draw short sword (free), attack with short sword (light weapon off-hand attack 1 of 3), attack with armor spikes (light weapon off-hand attack 2 of 3), drop short sword (free), Quick Draw dagger (free), attack with dagger (light weapon off-hand attack 3 of 3)?

EDIT: Or, even more fun, Two-Weapon Warrior archetype fighter takes 5 iterative attacks with a two-handed falcata followed by letting go of one hand on the weapon (free) and Quick Drawing a second falcata (or a quickdraw shield to keep your AC up) to finish off the attack sequence giving him 1.5x Strength damage for the first 5 attacks and full Strength damage for the "off-hand" attacks (presuming we add Double Slice to the mix).


Yep.

Also, you could just make every single one of your MH and OH attacks with just that first Longsword by passing it back and fourth between your hands via free actions.

/headdesk


ThatEvilGuy wrote:


Nowhere does it mention that you can take iterative attacks with the second weapon. In fact, there are archetypes that specifically give you this ability. The rondelero duelist for example:

SRD wrote:

Strong Swing (Ex)

At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 5th. With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack. This does not grant additional attacks or incur

...

Sorry, it is another Prone shooter...


wraithstrike wrote:
I guess they are worried about someone hold items and attacking with their feet, which would give the monk a distinct advantage. If that is the case they can create an item that only works on the monk's fist. That way they can keep the amulet for the monk, and those who have no intention of using a weapon or holding anything in their hands are not taxed for no reason.

That isn't particularly adding to the monk's effectiveness as:

a) The number of actual attacks wouldn't change and
b) The unarmed strike is sub-standard anyway.
I mean yes, if you had a siangham in one hand and a kama in the other and were attacked by a skeleton, this would theoretically give you an advantage, but no more so than dropping the two weapons and certainly no more so than a character with Quickdraw and a spare weapon.

It still does not justify the AoMF's astronomical price for the monk. As I said, it's perfectly priced for the druid's animal companion.

Steve Geddes wrote:
I still think its true, even if they "failed badly" in this instance (I wouldn't know).

I do not question their intent, only the result.

Steve Geddes wrote:
We still want them to try to make the game as good as possible. What else do we want them to aim for?

Nothing else but that - and I believe that, on the whole, they do.

BYC wrote:

How this all got started in the first place is hand wraps for monks in Ultimate Equipment.

So if FoB = TWF stays, Paizo better make items in Ultimate Equipment that's worth a damn for the monk.

I believe SKR has already indicated that anything that makes the AoMF redundant is out, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

BYC wrote:
But I would still complain about FoB = TWF because of all the problem it creates.

Me too.

BYC wrote:
Dabbler, you might need to point people to your post with all the exceptions and why lots of us want it FoB /=/ TWF. And this is from a guy who is willing to accept nerfs due to rules clarifications. Because very few thought FoB = TWF in the first place, including Paizo designers.

I think the short one is here. The longer, somewhat tongue-in-cheek version is here.

ThatEvilGuy wrote:
For a typically ascetically inclined archetype, monks sure need to invest in quite a few extremely expensive magic items to stay competitive in the game. The same can be said for most classes but the monk is the class that gets the "you can't have stuff" option, so you'd think it implied that magic items should be gravy on the meal instead of the main course.

Yep, that's about the size of it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
mdt wrote:


Sorry,
But bestiary disagree's with this interpretation.

It seems it's intended that if you are attacking with more than two weapons, you need multiweapon fighting, not two-weapon fighting. If TWF acted as you claim, there would be no reason for MWF, as TWF would handle the third weapon.

EDIT : Darn Ninja-Gators and their silly top hats.

Incorrect.

You are confusing things here.

Multiweapon fighting gives an additional attack for each extra arm.

It's the extra attacks that this is dealing with NOT the number of weapons.

What is my example 11BAB thrower doing when he's making his 3 BAB attacks with those daggers? Is he multi-weapon fighting? No. He's making his normal iterative attacks.

It's a common misunderstanding, do a search either here, WOTC, or maybe the Yahoo infinite monkeys group and you can read all you'd care to about people confusing fighting with N weapons and two weapon fighting.

James

I am not confusing things. MWF says it explicitly replaces TWF for creatures with more than two arms. You will admit this yes? Replace means replace, not works like. TWF explicitly states two weapons, on in the off hand. MWF explicitly states more than two weapons, with all but one hand being considered the 'off hand'.

Your example has nothing to do with TWF or MWF. A character throwing knives is making a ranged attack based on his iterative attacks. I don't know how you can conflate iterative attacks with TWF/MWF.

It's rather simple James, I'll explain it in small words.

TWF: Allows character to attack with one main weapon (1st weapon) and an off-hand weapon (2nd weapon) for a smaller penalty than normal. It does not say anything about more than 2 weapons, it only speaks to main and off-hand weapon (singular, not plural).

MWF: Allows character to attack with one main weapon (1st weapon) and two or more off-hand weapons (2nd to Nth weapon), based on the number of arms they have. It explicitly states they can use those extra hands as weapons.

Your original comment, which I was referring to, commented on the fact that TWF would allow you to make an attack with (A) A main hand sword, (B) an off-hand dagger, and (C) A boot dagger. However, nothing in TWF says anything about attacking with 3 weapons, only two, one main and one off-hand, not one main and two off-hand. That requires MWF, from a strict RAW reading. TWF would allow one main weapon (sword) and either off-hand Dagger, or off-hand boot blade, but not both.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

I need a monk with 3+ arms now!

All kidding aside, has the Devs chimed in recently or are they still studying the issue?

It would be nice if they would at least post on a thread or start another thread as a place holder to let us know where they will post their ruling once they finish reviewing.

I only want to have to watch one thread on the flurry of blows issue and not 20 with new ones being created all the time.


OgeXam wrote:
I need a monk with 3+ arms now!

If the devs claim an unarmed strike is more than two natural attacks, I believe that would qualify - although the whole point of FoB working 'like TWF' in either form is that it cannot be stacked with TWF, and therefore probably Multi-Weapon Fighting as well.

OgeXam wrote:
All kidding aside, has the Devs chimed in recently or are they still studying the issue?

Not a word here, although the mods have been combing it.

OgeXam wrote:

It would be nice if they would at least post on a thread or start another thread as a place holder to let us know where they will post their ruling once they finish reviewing.

I only want to have to watch one thread on the flurry of blows issue and not 20 with new ones being created all the time.

I know, it's a pain. I do hope they are following the discussion though, there are a lot of good points being raised.


james maissen wrote:
Axl wrote:


The two-weapon fighting feat allows attacks with exactly two weapons. (Clue is in the name.) It does not allow attacks with three weapons in one full-attack.

Incorrect.

One can, with a BAB 11 say, make 3 attacks- each with one of 3 different weapons and not be TWF.

If one elects to use TWF, then that same character could make 4 attacks with 4 different weapons.

For example the character in question could be using quickdraw and throwing different daggers with each attack.

This is perfectly within the rules.

The name of the fighting style is what confuses people. If WOTC had originally named it something else like 'Florentine' or some such, despite getting flack on it not being accurate it would have caused less confusion down the line.

-James

James, I'm still missing something here. Are you saying that a monk at 15th level having 6 attacks (+13,+13,+8,+8,+3,+3) in accordance with SKRs ruling must make 3 attacks with his primary hand/attack at +13,+8, and +3, and then any combination of off-hand weapon and/or unarmed strikes for his other +13,+8, and +3?

Where does it say that? I understand there is a difference between the feat name and the feat content, but the feat content constantly refers to an extra attack with one off-hand. It doesn't talk about multiple off-hands being used for that one extra attack or how they can or have to be combined to fulfill that feat's text.

What if that monk wants to make 3 attacks with US as his "primary"? Does he get to choose? If so, then does that mean the off-hand attacks must use one or both of the weapons in his hands with or without any US mixed in?


HappyDaze wrote:
Hyla wrote:

"Retcon" isn't quite the right expression IMO.

What you are discussing is: "Is this a rules change or a rules clarification"?

I think its most certainly a rules change. One I do not really see the need for.

I tried to tell them that retcon is not the appropriate term, but they persist. Some out of ignorance and others out of willful ignorance.

In a way it's funny that some of the same people claiming the current monk problem comes from unclear language in the writing would then go on to (sometimes deliberately) misuse a term when discussing the issue.

i had no clue the term "retcon" even exsisted before these issues with monks poped up. and personally i think its a very moronic term, no offence intended to anyone who used it.


jupistar wrote:
What if that monk wants to make 3 attacks with US as his "primary"? Does he get to choose? If so, then does that mean the off-hand attacks must use one or both of the weapons in his hands with or without any US mixed in?

... and this is why FoB=TWF is such a can of worms.


Retcon IS an incorrect term in this case, although the negative implications of what a retcon is still apply.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retcon

As defined, while Retcon is not an entirely APPROPRIATE term where this discussion is concerned. However, in terms of mechanics and how many different PFS and rules-dependent gaming groups will be affected by this, it could very well be a retcon that affects their continuity. After all, the monk certainly can't fight the way they used to. ~_^

But yeah. Retcon probably isn't the right term.


Neo2151 wrote:

Yep.

Also, you could just make every single one of your MH and OH attacks with just that first Longsword by passing it back and fourth between your hands via free actions.

/headdesk

That's really strange. I always thought the "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand,[...]" part of two weapon fighting covered making attacks with weapons in your off hand in general.

/threadjack

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jupistar wrote:

James, I'm still missing something here. Are you saying that a monk at 15th level having 6 attacks (+13,+13,+8,+8,+3,+3) in accordance with SKRs ruling must make 3 attacks with his primary hand/attack at +13,+8, and +3, and then any combination of off-hand weapon and/or unarmed strikes for his other +13,+8, and +3?

Where does it say that? I understand there is a difference between the feat name and the feat content, but the feat content constantly refers to an extra attack with one off-hand. It doesn't talk about multiple off-hands being used for that one extra attack or how they can or have to be combined to fulfill that feat's text.

Its not a clarification of TWF, its a clarification of iterative attacks. Someone said you needed TWF to attack with your off hand, and errata say that is not the case.

So you have to make a +13/+8/+3 with your off hand, and the other attacks can be in any combination.

jupistar wrote:
What if that monk wants to make 3 attacks with US as his "primary"? Does he get to choose? If so, then does that mean the off-hand attacks must use one or both of the weapons in his hands with or without any US mixed in?

The off-hand attacks can be any of his off-hand attacks, but as pointed out upthread, they would all hand to be the same off-hand attack if it works like TWF.

Liberty's Edge

Uninvited Ghost wrote:
I said it once in this thread, but no one answered. So I'll ask again: what does it matter if it's a retcon or not?

+1 on this and does it really matter? As a good friend of mine often likes to say "Learn to deal, and house-rule it!"

I skipped to the last page because I don't think this need discussing, we all have better things to do then rant about this, like finding a loophole or playing the game.

-Flash


Darkholme wrote:
jupistar wrote:

James, I'm still missing something here. Are you saying that a monk at 15th level having 6 attacks (+13,+13,+8,+8,+3,+3) in accordance with SKRs ruling must make 3 attacks with his primary hand/attack at +13,+8, and +3, and then any combination of off-hand weapon and/or unarmed strikes for his other +13,+8, and +3?

Where does it say that? I understand there is a difference between the feat name and the feat content, but the feat content constantly refers to an extra attack with one off-hand. It doesn't talk about multiple off-hands being used for that one extra attack or how they can or have to be combined to fulfill that feat's text.

Its not a clarification of TWF, its a clarification of iterative attacks. Someone said you needed TWF to attack with your off hand, and errata say that is not the case.

So you have to make a +13/+8/+3 with your off hand, and the other attacks can be in any combination.

jupistar wrote:
What if that monk wants to make 3 attacks with US as his "primary"? Does he get to choose? If so, then does that mean the off-hand attacks must use one or both of the weapons in his hands with or without any US mixed in?
The off-hand attacks can be any of his off-hand attacks, but as pointed out upthread, they would all hand to be the same off-hand attack if it works like TWF.

I understand, but I brought up the issue of a third weapon with regards to FoB, because it directly relates to the issue of SKR's clarification. We run into a certain nonsensical nature, it seems, as a result. It seemed to me that James was arguing that wasn't the case.

Dark Archive

Sure. I was saying you can use the third weapon with your regular iteratives, but the TWF attacks all must be made with a single off-hand weapon.

I think the "New Old Ruling" breaks too many things to be worth the change, personally; and the monk was already a weak class.


Darkholme wrote:

Sure. I was saying you can use the third weapon with your regular iteratives, but the TWF attacks all must be made with a single off-hand weapon.

I think the "New Old Ruling" breaks too many things to be worth the change, personally; and the monk was already a weak class.

Oh, I missed that. How is that again? I mean, if your "third weapon" is used for your iterative, then it's really your primary weapon. That leaves your other two weapons as "off-hand", does it not?

251 to 300 of 383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / New Flurry Interpretation Retcon Or Not? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.